Antonios Sarrigiannis v. The Greek Community, 2014 HRTO 589

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonios Sarrigiannis

Applicant

-and-

The Greek Community

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: April 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 589

Indexed as: Sarrigiannis v. The Greek Community

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Antonios Sarrigiannis, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 7, 2014, and alleges reprisal in the area of employment.

2The applicant explains in his Application that he taught Greek language at a respondent school, but was told on September 21, 2013 that he no longer had his teaching position. The applicant alleges that this happened because his reputation was ruined by the President of the respondent’s Education Department when the President threatened him in the presence of other senior officers of the respondent on October 12, 2012.

3On March 11, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application, on the basis that it appears that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of delay, and because the Application fails to identify and specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on March 18, 2014.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5At this preliminary stage, before the Application has been delivered to the respondent, the Tribunal will only dismiss an application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6In the present case, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to reprisal within the meaning of the Code when he asked a question that related to his rights as an employee. In particular, he alleges that on October 12, 2012 he asked the President of the respondent’s Education Department why a particular individual was a principal at two Greek schools. He alleges that the President then threatened him in front of other senior members of the respondent, and he feels that this is why he was told on September 21, 2013 that he no longer had his teaching position. The applicant explains further in his submissions in response to the NOID that the President of the respondent’s Education Department told him to keep his “mouth shut” and that he did so because of fear of losing his job, and that he did lose his teaching position without reason.

7With respect to reprisal, section 8 of the Code provides that:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

8While the applicant alleges that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal for claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code, the applicant has not explained how he claimed or enforced his rights under the Code. The applicant explains that he asked why a particular individual was the principal at two schools, which he describes as a question about his rights “as an employee.”

9It is clear that the applicant considers the respondent’s actions to have been unfair, but the applicant has not explained how the respondent’s actions were in any way related or linked to the applicant claiming or enforcing rights within the meaning of the Code. In the absence of an explanation of how the respondent’s alleged actions constitute reprisal within the meaning of the Code, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve this Application.

10I find that the Application does not make any allegations that relate to the grounds of discrimination under the Code, including reprisal within the meaning of the Code. Accordingly, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve this Application.

11In the circumstances, I need not consider the issue of delay.

12The Application is dismissed.